By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:40:42 +0000

Beri,
Two comments:
1. The HIPAA claim is a lie. If the record is about you, they can give you the information. If it’s not, then it shouldn’t be attributed to you. Some lawyer will make a killing pointing out that institutions are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
2. It’s not your identity, it’s your dossier that’s at risk.

By: beri

beri — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:34:33 +0000

This is a bit off-topic, but if someone steals your identity, they can use it to obtain medical care in your name. And the hospitals, etc, will not be much help, because to tell you anything would be a violation of the privacy act (HIPPA).
So it isn’t just an issue of whether your genetic information is safe,it’s an issue of whether your entire identity is safe as well.

By: calzone

calzone — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:43:23 +0000

brain fart above
ultimately reduces the overall cost and quality of care.
should have said:
ultimately reduces the overall cost and increases the overall quality of care.

By: calzone

calzone — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:28:23 +0000

Ultimately, the concept of insurance is flawed to begin with.
The cost of repairing something that’s broken is fixed. The quantity of repairs can be statistically expressed as a percentage of the size of the population. No one participant knows if they will need to repair something or not. So they agree to pool their money together, invest that money for greater returns, and make the proceeds available to whomever actually needs to repair something. Everyone feels secure because the money is there, everyone puts in money because “but for the grace of God, there go I.”
In a sense, it’s voluntary socialism –(because if you think you don’t need it you can always opt out).
But what happens when more visibility is granted into whether it’s needed or not? The whole idea seems less worthwhile. If you know you don’t need it, you’ll leave, if you know you definitely need it, you’ll stay on. But then it feeds back into itself because as more people leave, the premiums for those left over goes up, making the premium less attractive (why pay $200,000 to an insurance co who’ll pay out $200,000 of coverage instead of keeping the money yourself).
So insurance today works only because of the unknowable element. Not quite voluntary socialism, but basically: gambling.
Yet knowing the unknowable ultimately reduces the overall cost and quality of care. So it’s ridiculous to cover it up. That means insurance interests are at odds with improved health care –indeed, if someone invented a “never get sick pill” there would be practically no need for insurance and they’d go out of business. So why should we care about their interests at all when they depend on our being in the dark and getting sick? It’s a macabre game.
The only way insurance companies could function with a 100% informed population is if the coverage were mandated (so even if you don’t need it, you have to pay for it so that others who do need it don’t have to pay as much). The only way a mandated system can actually work politically is if people don’t have to pay in proportion to their risk to the degree that it cripples them financially. Maybe the insurance companies have been wrong to use risk at all, since it sets up an us vs. them mentality.
So the problem can be broadly reduced to this: do we want all society to more or less equally share the cost and responsibility of keeping everyone healthy? Or do we want every man for himself? The more we know about genetics and risk factors, the closer we get to having to make that decision. Do you want to pay for an overweight lady’s diabetes amputation and medication? Do you want her to pay for your cancer?
The “good news” is that accidents are still unpredictable. So maybe that’s enough incentive for even the healthiest of us to pay into a system.

Comments on: Privacy & Healthcare

By: Adam

By: beri

By: calzone

By: calzone